Member Info for Caterham7

I have Nige filtered, so don’t see his posts, but if there is a debate on reserve and resource definitions, here is link to the official definitions https://www.spe.org/en/industry/petroleum-resources-classification-system-definitions/

There are loads of good summaries of resource definition out there on Google. Here is link to a nice easy summary slide set. If short on time, just look at slides 4, 13 and 15 https://www.gljpc.com/sites/default/files/Understanding%20Contingent%20Resources_1.pdf

If you look at amplitude map on slide 9 of this PRD presentation, it looks like the MOU1 well encountered gas in same amplitude body as MOU2 (amplitude response actually lot stronger at MOU2), hence SLR Consulting who wrote the CPR consider the MOU2 gas essentially discovered, hence the ‘Contingent Resource’ classification of MOU2 volumes.
https://wp-predatoroilandgas-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2022/09/Proactive-Presentation-Final-8-September-2022-LATEST.pdf

Keith,

Thanks.. That source maturity map is partially useful - does show depth variability in Jurassic interval (as expected), so yes, potential for different source kitchens, but a few issues with the map:
1. No colour scale bar - what do the colours mean?
2. Map is Base Jurassic, and not the exact proposed Domerian / Pliensbachian source interval. So map is a proxy for source maturity, and maybe slightly deeper than actual source interval.

Also, ONHYM talk about a potential Carboniferous source rock. It is possible that gas generated from Carboniferous and Jurassic has mingled over time, again, leading to possibility of different gas signatures in different parts of Guercif Basin.

I’ve seen a lot of red oilfield trucks in my time…

https://anadarkodozer.com/services/mud-hauling/

https://www.oilandgasmiddleeast.com/products-services/35042-halliburton-ranks-second-on-the-top-30-oilfield-services-companies-of-2019

https://www.alamy.com/file-chinese-workers-produce-vehicle-mounted-oil-and-gas-equipment-at-a-workshop-of-the-jereh-oilfield-services-group-in-yantai-city-east-chinas-image261784434.html

Great starter question, and another top post from Keith.

Very quick post from me (family duties!).

1. As I mentioned in a prior post, the best tool for determining reservoir connectivity is pressure data - plus an overlay of biostrat and heavy mineral analysis, but I don’t know if these (particularly later) are part of the evaluation program.

2. Keith’s post on gas compositions is spot on. However, there is a potential scenario in which Dave’s question rings true, and this is based on my actual hands-on experience in both North Sea and Campos Basin (Brazil). The observation is that a single geological basin can have more than one discrete source kitchen area, ie, in two separate areas of the basin, the same source rock has undergone variable burial, and could possibly develop two separate gas kitchens, each of which will likely produce gas of subtly different compositions. In the NS and Brazil examples I’m thinking of, wells we drilled into same age reservoir, not a huge distance apart, did actually contain Oil/gas of slightly different composition, because each well was sited to separate source kitchen.

I have no idea if this applies to Guercif. I’m sure a Guercif Basin source maturity map is in public domain (Have PRD shared one?). If someone sends me a link to the map, I will take a look.

No flare during drilling, only during testing.

The kind of statements we could expect in next Morocco RNS are:
1. Target TD safely reached at depth of XXXXm.
2. Possibly some mention of any Geological / Mechanical issues encountered.
3. Mention of background gas levels encountered whilst drilling.
4. Evaluation of LWD results indicate sufficient net gas pay to justify couple days of extra rig time for running of wireline logs (always possible that they release the RNS after wireline results are known).
5. Comment on decision to proceed with flow test.

Earliest I would expect an RNS is later part of next week, or even week after. Once TD is reached, I suspect PRD will want to 1) evaluate LWD logs, 2) review results with ONHYM, 3) Agree way forward with ONHYM, 4) Agree RNS wording with ONHYM, all before releasing an RNS.

Keith - Great visual description. Always a challenge to describe complex models in simple terms.

MEM - "what if the gas cloud is further over and therefore larger than first thought???" I think this unlikely. Shallow gas clouds have a clear and distinctive seismic signature. Pre-Drill safety case evaluation always places much importance on clearly defining shallow gas risks - PRD will have mapped in detail the shallow gas cloud body. At these shallow depths there will be limited chance of lateral seismic velocity uncertainty, ie, very probable that the gas body is exactly where they think it is.

I struggled to make this post as fun as Keith's post!

NigelHimaGoblin,

On 8th January you posted "Excellent posts Caterham but mostly irrelevant to we, the non-geologists: we would be unable to understand the academic material in the context of real world E and P ops!"

But now you want me to provide my geological reasoning!!!!!! No thanks - you made your position clear.

Ramping - not my style. I let the data do the talking.

Into the filter bin.

gg2020 - I normally only assign a COS after very full and thorough deep-dive evaluation of all project data- something I don't have here. I only see the same seismic and log data as everyone else on this BB.

Based on my global and Morocco specific experience, I am running with the following very much 'gut-feel' COS for MOU2:

Technical COS: 70-80% (this is chance of logs indicating gas volume that falls within pre-drill P90-P10 volume prediction)

Commercial (CNG) COS: 40-60%. Ive tried to reverse engineer and modify the CPR commercial COS for Gas-to-Power which is stated as 25%, but to be honest there are many unknowns (future gas price, supply contract details, etc) in the commercial equation, hence the wider range for this COS.

I’m still here - watching. Will only post if I think I’m adding value.

Laughable that there are certain posters on this BB who thing geology is irrelevant to investing in E&P projects. Those jokers now filtered.

Very excited about news flow over next month. Will post if I think worthy. Cheers.

Ford - I’m just catching up on PRD posts again.

You think I’m new to this BB. If you care to look at my posting history, I first started posting on PRD on 18th October 2020 - when I started building my very substantial equity stake. I only post when I have something I consider value adding - I’m not a daily keyboard warrior.

Ford - what odd posts you right! Depends how you define rich? My career and investing has paid in full for a very large Tudor (not mock!) house in SE, my vintage cars, my motor sport participation (hence my name on this BB), and knocked five years off my retirement age. Other than that, I’m poor as a church mouse. Key point is that I enjoy investing in what I truly understand.

Can you please point to the post, in which I refer to 3D seismic over Guercif - I think you will find there is no such post.

I had email communication with GRH today. Very thoughtful chap. Fully understand why he departed.

If you think I’m overly flexing my muscles - I will from now stay low profile, and leave this BB in your expert capable hands.

Many decades of E&P, has taught me to wish for a simpler base-case outcome, and then with time / drilling / data, progressively expand that case into something more material. In this case, I will be ecstatic (and rich) with commercial CNG volumes of gas in multiple stacked separate gas legs.

In a licence of this scale, I think it very likely that some parts of the fan complex will be in communication, and others won’t. I’m pretty sure the drilling Eureka moments will be mingled with bouts of head scratching - same for every giant discovery in the world, and especially so for proof of concept basin ‘play-openers’ such as this.

DR - get yourself a copy of this - my recommended, very accessible, sedimentology book for interested armchair Geologists. Covers geological setting of every AIM and FTSE O&G project.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SEDIMENTARY-ENVIRONMENTS-PROCESSES-FACIES-STRATIGRAPHY/dp/812653298X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1VHLM9HPVUGFF&keywords=Sedimentary+environments&qid=1673017583&s=books&sprefix=sedimentary+environments+%2Cstripbooks%2C150&sr=1-1

If you want something a little more soporific, I will post links to the various turbidite research papers I have published (except that would give my identity away!)

The ‘??’ At end of my post, was supposed to be a smiley face!!!

Jimmy - good to see someone trying to apply logic to something as complex as Mother Nature!

I won’t dissect your post, but a couple of counter observations:
1. Basin inversion can be very positive at eroding basin margins and reinvigorating turbidite drainage systems.
2. Not sure I understand your comment (second sentence) regards thicker sands = better connectivity. I wish geology was that predictable! In my mind, fan connectivity requires errosional down-cutting to erode windows in inter-fan shale drapes. This is more likely in proximal higher energy slope margin settings, than in lower energy unconfined basin floor settings. In my experience, stacked, thin, proximal turbidites can have much greater connectivity than stacked, massively thick, Lower energy turbidites, out in middle of basin floor.
3. To me, the first key question is “is the Guercif turbidite system sand rich or mud rich?” (Go Google for a plethora of good papers on differences and implications!). A sand rich turbidite system will typically have lesser volume of shale drape between fan bodies, in which case, even thinnish distal turbidites have been proven to be in communication.
4. Second key question is “How confined was the basin at time of fan deposition?”. If the basin was relatively unconfined, the fans would likely ultimately end up scattered and isolated on a vast basin floor, ie, reduced chance of connectivity. If on the other hand, the basin is reasonably confined, the fans will be forced to sit on top of each other (amalgamated fan complex), ie, significantly increases chance of fan connectivity.

Based on my eyeballing of same PowerPoint slide seismic sections, and well results, as everyone else on this BB, combined with my knowledge of tectonostratigraphic evolution of this part of Morocco - my gut feel is that Guercif is a moderately sand rich and confined basin at time of reservoir deposition.

I used to put the industries largest global Turbidite Research Group though the ringer, in trying to build predictive and risk quantification models for the above type of turbidite system nuances. Amazing how much depositional system info can be extracted from seismic when global analogues are used for guidance.

Happily invested here ??

I will keep it simple - Standard oil field practice is to plot pressure data from all wells on same pressure plot. If pressure points from both wells lie on exactly the same pressure gradient, they are assumed to be in communication. If PRD proceed to flow test both MOU-1 and MOU-2, then they can perform pressure transient analysis on both wells which will further enhance understanding of reservoir connectivity.

I was going to post some links, but my internet is terrible today! Try Googling on something like 'determining reservoir communication' and you will have a wide choice of bedtime reading.

1996-2000 was when onshore exploration focus switched to offshore - which is when I got involved in Morocco exploration. Prior to this period the Moroccan’s hadn’t considered oil potential out into Atlantic, beyond their shallow coastal waters (Google ‘Cap Judy’). This was period when lot of global giant oil discoveries were being made along Atlantic Margin (Ghana, Angola, Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, etc) and Morocco wanted piece of the action. Industry spent a decade shooting deepwater seismic and building subsurface models. Turns out offshore Morocco is blessed with fantastic prospect traps and reservoir sand, but the huge thicknesses of Cretaceous source rock are sadly immature. It was about time of this realisation that gas increased in importance, Moroccans had enough of relying on Algeria for energy, Morocco more disparate than ever for energy independence, and hence switch and renewed Exploration focus back to onshore Morocco ( Sound Energy, etc).

All the Geos I knew who were working different offshore licences for different companies, were all talking about intriguing potential of Morocco onshore gas. This is a belief I harboured for a decade or so, and then came along PRD, and a home for large slice of my investment funds!

N63 - a) is an absolute given. Any RNS issued by any company, has to be signed off by all partners. ONHYM are 25% equity owners, so yes - they absolutely get to proof read and comment on RNS prior to issue. b) is extremely unlikely - not in nature of Moroccans to work like that, and based on my observations of PG, not in his nature to accept subordinate role.